Category Archives: 2012 Presidential

I really don’t get political wives; do y’all?

14 Replies

I’m guessing there’s a little-known codicil attached to the First Amendment that says you’re only allowed to make a certain number of painfully trite and pandering campaign ads in a month, so Rick Perry had to get his wife to do one, because he had exceeded his quota.

That would help explain the painful-to-watch phenomenon above.

Set aside the script, which makes me think that the Perry campaign paid the writers extra not to put in anything touching on originality or genuinely revelatory of character: No, this sounds too much like a real person — go back and watch another hour’s worth of ads from the 19950s and try again!

The appearance of a political wife in this one reminds me of the question Kathleen Parker raised yesterday: “Callista Gingrich: A Laura or a Hillary?” My first reaction, when I saw that headline on Twitter, was to think “Neither; she’s a Stepford.” But that one’s been done to death, so I didn’t Tweet it.

My next thought was this: I’m always a bit suspicious of political wives when they step to the fore. Like, why are they doing this? Is it their own ambition (I guess Hillary is supposed to stand for that) or are we to think they’re just so doggoned loyal and supportive that they’ll put up with all this, and with a fixed smile (I’m guessing that’s Laura)?

I mean, the candidates themselves are, by definition, not psychologically normal. No regular guy puts himself through that. He either desires power, or other people’s approval, or self-flagellation, or regular sex (the Alpha Male phenomenon), way more than your average Joe does, or he’s got a screw loose, or he is just ordained by Almighty God to be the nation’s leader (which would be my excuse, were I to run).

But hey, at the end of it all, he gets to be president and call the shots (which LOTS of guys would go for, if they didn’t have to go through a campaign to get there). But to run for First Lady? Where’s the reward? You have to show up for all the ribbon-cuttings, but get no real power. So I wonder. About all of them. (As for the husbands of female candidates — there are too few, and they stay too far in the background, for me to have formed many impressions, much less to have leaped to any generalizations.)

Whenever I’ve mentioned — just for the sake of argument, baby, just for laughs, you know, heh-heh — the remote possibility of thinking about considering running for office, I don’t get the sense from my wife that she’d be up for ANY sort of involvement in such madness. Because she’s a normal, sane person, and doesn’t need anything that such an experience has to offer. Which makes me wonder about the women who DO actively get involved in such goings-on.

It puzzles me.

All you “progressives” out there: Don’t forget to vote for Mitt Romney next month!

21 Replies

Last night I was cleaning out email, and ran across this item from last week.

Actually, technically, it’s from 2002. In the clip, Mitt Romney assures Massachusetts voters, “My views are progressive.” And you know, at the moment, it may have been true.

In any case, you may have noticed he doesn’t say that much any more, for some reason.

Well played, sir: Newt says he’s got Wilkins

12 Replies

Not brother David, the ex-speaker and ambassador, but Billy Wilkins, the former head of the 4th Circuit:

After Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney for president this morning, S.C. frontrunner Newt Gingrich responded by announcing the endorsements of Billy and Debra Wilkins.

Billy Wilkins is a partner at the Nexsen Pruet law firm and a former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His wife Debra is a former member of the board of visitors at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Gingrich’s campaign noted that Billy Wilkins is “most recently known for playing a pivotal role in Boeing’s decision to locate in South Carolina.”…

Billy Wilkins

Maybe it doesn’t cut much ice with the rank and file voters who still like Nikki Haley, but they are, ahem, in the minority now. As for this minority of one, I certainly find the endorsement of Judge Wilkins to be more impressive than the one Romney bagged. For what little that’s worth. Newt’s all like, Yo, maybe you’ve got Nikki, but I’ve got somebody serious. So much for me being the wild man, huh?

Interesting that Romney, the closest thing the GOP field has to an establishment candidate, gets the Tea Party governor’s backing, but Gingrich the Perpetual Insurgent comes up with an endorsement as Establishment as Billy Wilkins.

You just can’t make any assumptions in this contest…

Haley’s for Romney: So does that mean Gingrich has sewn up SC now?

13 Replies

I suppose you’ve seen this news:

Haley endorses Romney

By ADAM BEAM and GINA SMITH – abeam@thestate.com, gnsmith@thestate.com

Gov. Nikki Haley has endorsed Mitt Romney for president and will campaign with him in Greenville today and Myrtle Beach and Charleston tomorrow.

“He is a conservative businessman who has spent his life working in the economy, and he understands exactly how jobs are created,” Haley said in a news release from Romney’s campaign.

In a none-too-veiled slap at Romney’s chief GOP rival, former House Speaker Next Gingrich, Haley added, “He is not a creature of Washington, and he knows what it means to make decisions – real decisions – not simply cast a vote.”…

The first thought this prompts is, Does this mean Newt Gingrich is a shoo-in in South Carolina? Maybe I’d better call back the folks from the British consulate and say, Hey, I now know what’s going to happen.

Or not. This year is so unpredictable that even an endorsement by a Republican who is less popular in South Carolina than Barack Obama is not a sure thing.

Now, confession time: I feel a little bad that that was my first thought. Because it means I’m thinking like those people who used to say that “The State‘s endorsement is the kiss of death.” Of course, they were so demonstrably wrong — I ran the numbers, and over the course of the years I was on the editorial board, 75 percent of our endorsees in general elections won — but I still hate to be so dismissive.

But what am I gonna do? That was the first thing it occurred to me to say. Of course, you might say that I could wait a minute, and have other thoughts. To which I would say, Hey, this is a blog, not print.

I suppose, if I do think a bit more, I would say:

  • No news here. It’s what everyone expected. She was for him in 2008, back when she was a mere backbencher. And he endorsed her early for governor (something I still can’t get used to; outsiders interfering in our elections).
  • Romney is using the standard playbook here, getting the endorsement of the sitting governor — as though he were George H.W. Bush, and she were Carroll Campbell. Well, he isn’t. And she isn’t. And this is a year in which the playbook seems to have been torn up. But we’ll see.
  • I wonder what she would have done had Sarah Palin stayed in it?

By the way, the national media still don’t get Nikki Haley and South Carolina. They think it’s a biggie, or at least some of them do. Samuel Tenenbaum said he was taken aback when he saw this reported on MSNBC at 5 this morning. (Routine for him; Samuel is an early riser.) But probably not everyone in SC reacted the way he did. Or the way I did. It takes all kinds to make up a South Carolina.

Which is my way of saying, maybe this is a bigger deal than I think it is. But it seems unlikely.

Huntsman passes Ron Paul, climbs to 3rd in N.H.

24 Replies

Jon Huntsman, back when he was spending more time in SC.

What does “bumped” mean to you? When I saw this Tweet this morning:

Huntsman bumped to third place with 13 percent in New Hampshire poll http://bit.ly/tChRZR

… I thought they were saying he had been higher than 3rd, and had been “bumped” down — like getting bumped from a flight or something. Which would have been news to me that he had been doing that well.

But what they meant was that he was “bumped up,” and is now behind only Romney and Gingrich. Which, actually, was also news to me:

A new poll found Jon Huntsman with 13 percent support from likely Republican and independent voters surveyed in New Hampshire.

The 7News/Suffolk University poll released late Wednesday found Huntsman in third place among likely Republican and New Hampshire voters, trailing Mitt Romney (with 38 percent) and Newt Gingrich (with 20). The survey’s findings are the best yet for Huntsman in the Granite State. Previously, his best poll in New Hampshire showed him in fourth place at 11 percent, behind Romney, Gingrich and Ron Paul….

The modest gains in the 7News/Suffolk University poll reflect Huntsman’s near-exclusive focus on performing well in the early primary state. Huntsman had previously polled at 9 percent when 7News/Suffolk University surveyed the GOP primary field with the same questions last month.

Huntsman is staking his presidential campaign’s future on New Hampshire. He hopes that if he can perform well there, he can use the momentum to help him win successive victories in later states….

So now you know what Huntsman’s been up to. I was wondering, since I hadn’t seen him around here lately.

It seems to be paying off for him. Although it seems late for him to make such a move.

Wouldn’t it be something if, at the last minute, Republican voters said, “Hey, why don’t we nominate somebody who has a chance to win?” That would be one for the books, given the way they’ve been acting lately.

It’s particularly interesting given how well Ron Paul is doing in Iowa. Paul, of course, represents a trend whereby Republicans are running even farther away from electability. Huntsman represents the opposite.

Tell Her Majesty that I just don’t KNOW…

14 Replies

Yesterday, two representatives from Her Majesty’s Government came to see me to talk politics, as they periodically do.

It can be fun to play the local expert, whether for national or foreign media, or in service of the Special Relationship — especially if you’re an Anglophile like me. Maybe I can’t see “Tinker, Tailor” where I live (yet), but I can contribute to a report that might, just might, cross a latter-day George Smiley’s desk. OK, so it’s not very likely, but hey, I can dream…

The temptation is to sound like you really know what’s going on, even if you don’t — like The Tailor of Panama, or Our Man in Havana. But I’m not the type to mislead HMG. Perish the thought.

So yesterday, I had to tell my visitors that I just can’t explain what’s happening in the South Carolina primary, and therefore can’t predict anything. And that’s the unfortunate truth.

I don’t know why Newt Gingrich is suddenly leading by double digits in polls in South Carolina, other than it’s his turn. I don’t know whether that trend will continue, because I don’t understand the dynamics that led her to this point.

And one of the problems is this: I’m not hearing from people who are Gingrich fans. I have to acknowledge that maybe there are things I don’t hear, or am not exposed to, because I’m no longer the editorial page editor of the state’s largest newspaper. Maybe that’s why I feel like I understand what’s happening now less than I understood the situation four years ago.

But you know what? So much of what I was hearing and seeing then was through my blog. I wrote relatively little about national politics in the paper, so most of my interactions in that area were online. And to the extent that I was seen as someone engaged in writing about the presidential race, it was online. For instance, a number of the national and international media types who were interviewing me initially didn’t even know I worked at the newspaper; they had come to me as a widely-read blogger.

And I’m more widely read online now than I was then. My monthly page views are at least four times what they were then. And yet…

  • My traffic hasn’t been steadily climbing in the months leading up to the primary, the way it did four years ago. It hit a peak in August, then dropped a bit.
  • I  haven’t had a request for an interview from national or international sources since I spoke with E.J. Dionne at the start of November, which would be weird anytime, but especially with a primary coming up.
  • I just don’t run into people who are excited about the upcoming primary, either online or in person. Think about it — beyond Doug’s perpetual support for Ron Paul, who have you seen here who is pumped about a candidate? Well, it’s like that in the wider world. Quick — name five people you know who are eager to vote for Newt? You probably can’t. I know I can’t. People may be saying they’ll support Newt when a pollster asks, but they’re not going around bubbling with public excitement about it.
  • There were several national and international advocacy groups that had set up SC offices for the duration four years ago — and they had done it months before now. By the summer of 2007, they were up and running. This time, I know of one such group that has started a local office in recent months — One, the Bono group. I know a lot of nonprofits are far less flush with money than they were then, but it’s still remarkable.

Yes, I know that the buzz in SC should only be half of what it was four years ago, since only one party is having a primary. But it’s really much less than half. Things just feel dead by comparison.

I think one reason for that is expressed in that same Winthrop poll I referenced above. It also shows that 59 percent of those polled — and that includes Republicans — believe that Obama’s going to be elected. That, combined with a lower energy level (compared to last year) among Tea Partiers, has led to a really subdued campaign.

In a normal campaign, the fact that Newt is so far ahead, this late, would mean that he had it more or less locked up. This year, I don’t know. The polls give so easily this year, and can so easily take away. And this is Newt Gingrich — a guy with a well-known talent for self-destruction.

Normally, at this point, South Carolinians would be coalescing around the Republican most likely to with the nomination — usually, the establishment. A Bush. Bob Dole. John McCain. Now, the very definition of what it is to be a Republican — much less a South Carolina Republican — is more up in the air than at any time I remember.

So it seems to me there’s a better-than-even chance that SC won’t pick the eventual winner this time. The whole process is too wobbly, and less susceptible to steadying factors than in the past. And if that happens, there will be even less energy, and much less national attention, focused on the SC GOP primary four years from now.

But I just don’t know. When it’s hard to explain why what is already happening is happening, it’s very hard to predict what will happen next.

Yeah, but from NOW ON, he’s serious about this…

32 Replies

Thought I’d better share with you this startling development:

Remember that pledge that a conservative Christian group in Iowa asked all the Republican candidates to take this summer? The one that made them vow to uphold the institution of marriage (and reject pornography, and Islamic law, and marriage rights for gays, and…)?

Newt Gingrich declined to sign it back then, when he was way behind in the polls. But now, it seems, he has changed his mind. USA Today reports Gingrich has now signed the pledge, which, among other things, commits him to supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Oh yes, and it commits him to not committing adultery—something he has been known to do on a few occasions in the past. Twice-divorced, he began an affair with his current wife, Callista, while still married to another woman in 1993.

In a letter explaining his support for the pledge, circulated by the Iowa Family Leader, Gingrich wrote, “I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.” Politico has the full letter here….

Earlier today, in connection with Newt, we were having a discussion about various Semitic peoples. In the argot of one of those peoples, what Newt has just exhibited is called chutzpah.

How is Newt Gingrich like Alvin Greene?

14 Replies

Slate examines the subject of whether Newt Gingrich is more than merely an excitable boy:

Is Newt Nuts?

Consider the symptoms: Bouts of grandiosity, megalomania, irritability, impulsiveness, spending sprees …

… We’re quick to describe politicians whose views we find extreme or whose behavior seems odd as “crazy,” and perhaps anyone who runs for president in some sense is. But I’ve long wondered whether Newt Gingrich merits that designation in a more clinical sense. I’m not a psychiatrist, of course, and it’s impossible to diagnose someone at a distance. Without medical records that he hasn’t released, we can’t know whether Gingrich may have inherited his mother’s manic depression. Nevertheless, one observes in the former House Speaker certain symptoms—bouts of grandiosity, megalomania, irritability, racing thoughts, spending sprees—that go beyond the ordinary politician’s normal narcissism.

One possibility is that Newt suffers, and benefits from, the milder affliction of hypomania. In his 2005 book The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (a Little) Craziness and (a Lot of) Success in America, John D. Gartner, a Johns Hopkins psychiatrist, argues that this form of extreme optimism explains the achievements of everyone from Christopher Columbus to Andrew Carnegie. Gartner writes: “Hypomanics are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence, and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions ‘just doesn’t get it.’” Hypomanics lack discipline, act on impulse, suffer from over-confidence, and often lack judgment.

Is Newt delusional? Yes… except… the world keeps conforming itself to his delusions, making them reality.

I mean, he was crazy to run… I mean, come on, a guy with his baggage? But now he’s the frontrunner.

He had the same thing happen in the early 90s. He was the mad insurgent, the bomb-throwing back-bencher who thought he was born to rule — but he became speaker. The world changed in order to fit his megalomaniacal delusion.

It’s kind of like the Alvin Greene phenomenon. He was crazy to run, right? But he won. So who’s crazy?

‘The country Solynda’: I say we should invade it, take over, and let Rick Perry be its new president

4 Replies

Rick Perry has outdone himself this time:

Hours after Saturday’s presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry continued his string of memorable campaign gaffes.

CNN Political Ticker reports that Perry campaignedin the Hawkeye State, stopping in Ames. He focused on energy, taking shots at the Obama administration’s handling of government spending.

“No greater example of it than this administration sending millions of dollars into the solar industry, and we lost that money,” Perry said. “I want to say it was over $500 million that went to the country Solynda.”

You know that country, don’t you? It’s one of the three in the Axis of Doh!

Newt has GOP establishment sweating bullets

32 Replies

Peggy Noonan does a good job today of telling us just how uneasy the GOP establishment is about the rise of Newt Gingrich:

… What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, “solving two problems at once.” They’re afraid he’ll start saying, “John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him,” and “Sure, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize, but only after I explained how people can think fast, slow and at warp speed. He owes me everything.”

There are many good things to say about Newt Gingrich. He is compelling and unique, and, as Margaret Thatcher once said, he has “tons of guts.”

But this is a walk on the wild side.

She also understands that the fact that Newt makes the GOP establishment very nervous is a plus for him with the GOP base. Quite a little self-destructive spiral they have going in that party, huh? If the grownups, who’ve been there and know better, say, “Don’t do it!” they just can’t wait to rush in…

Did Colbert actually BUY a piece of the GOP primary, even provisionally?

4 Replies

That seems to be what I read earlier in the week, and shook my head in disbelief and moved on, before reading it again.

The State said Stephen Colbert failed to buy “naming rights” to the presidential primary, as one would expect, but then matter-of-factly drops this bombshell:

But the GOP did agree to place a question on its Jan. 21 primary ballot after Colbert, a South Carolina native, in return pledged a “significant contribution” from his super PAC to the S.C. Republican Party. (A GOP spokesman declined to say how big that pledge was.)…

Officials with the S.C. Republican Party met with Colbert a few times and reached an agreement to place a question about “corporate personhood” on the primary ballot. But they said no to the naming rights and debate co-sponsorship offers…

Really? Can that be? Nah, I said, and moved on…

Then I read this in The Free Times:

The Comedy Central satirist — and South Carolina native — approached state Republican Party officials a few months ago about making a significant contribution to the party through his Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrowsuper PAC.

In return, Colbert requested the party place a ballot question on the state’s first-in-the-South GOP presidential primary set for Jan. 21, that dealt with corporate personhood. The party agreed and on Nov. 11 asked state election officials to add a ballot referendum that asked voters to decide whether “corporations are people” or “only people are people.”…

But then, it apparently didn’t actually happen, because the party’s Matt Moore said “that the party never received a contribution from Colbert’s PAC.” And in any case the Supreme Court recently struck all such questions from the ballot (nice going there, justices!)

So basically, I guess if I had enough money, I could at least in theory go to the GOP and get it to place on the ballot a “referendum” question asking voters, say, whether they think The constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment should be waived in the case of the network hammerheads who cancelled “Firefly” in its first season.

Or maybe something else. Something actually controversial.

Folks, I like comedy as much as the next guy. And you know how little I think of political parties. But I hate to see one degrade itself to this extent. I mean, Hello! This guy makes his living MAKING FUN of y’all…

He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays

11 Replies

Just to cleanse the spiritual palate, brethren, I invoke Brother Tull to share with us a musical interlude.

This song has been running through my head a good bit lately. (Seeing “all the bishops” — or at least, all the Anglican clergy — lined up and harmonizing at Jason’s ordination the other day was but one instance in which it has come to mind.) You may find that interesting, in connection with my outrage at the tawdry way Rick Perry is trying to wind God up and make him toddle across the room, beating a toy drum that says “Perry for President.”

Perry’s message, considered most charitably, is after all that God has a place in the public square. He’s not supposed to be kept in a steepled ghetto. God is for every day, not an hour on Sunday.

I agree with that with all my heart and soul. God, properly considered, is for every day, every moment. (For that matter, it’s not for us to say what God’s for; it’s up to us to figure out what WE’RE intended for.) That’s one reason I like this song.

But I would submit that that includes the moments in which you try to exploit God to your own ends. You don’t wind him up then, either. Rather, you endeavor to alter yourself to fit His expectations.

This is a tough thing to talk about because we’re not supposed to judge, either — are we? So people get away with some really horrific stuff, because who are we to say? If another man testifies that this is how he experiences God, who are we to condemn?

And so people get away with all sorts of stuff, and if we protest, we are painted as being one of those who wants to keep God in a box.

And there are such people. Good, well-meaning people, quite often — although they are confused. They confuse the First Amendment with Jefferson’s views (when he wasn’t involved with it), and then go the further step of assuming that a ban on establishment of religion by Congress implies that we individual citizens (and that includes officeholders) are not supposed to talk about religion in the public sphere.

They are wrong. And their wrongness is all the more wrong because they create a space in which someone like Perry can construct a lie about a “war on religion.” And everything just gets worse. They are wrong, and he is wrong, and I suppose I’m wrong, too, for judging both.

But I feel better when I listen to the music. Don’t think you have to turn up your speakers when it starts out so soft. It builds.

The nuclear escalation of Rick Perry’s unholy war

16 Replies

Wow. I inadvertently backed into that last post.

I had looked at  the CNN report (the text, anyway), and the Perry “holiday greeting” from last year that made it look hypocritical. But I had failed to look at the ad that prompted the CNN report to begin with.

I thought I had seen Rick Perry take riding God like a hobby horse about as far as he could, in the ad I showed you last week.

But if that was Perry trying to be a holy warrior, in the latest ad, that war goes nuclear.

There is no way that I could ever support for president a man who tries so nakedly to bend God to his own ends. And that is a hard thing to explain to the sort of people Perry is trying to appeal to. And that just divides our country more and more (and leaves me feeling more and more alienated, since I can neither identify with secularists nor those who could actually believe the POTUS is engaged in a “war on religion”). And it’s so unnecessary.

How can a man think it’s SO important for him to be elected that he would do this? This is stomach-turning stuff.

And so this is Advent, and what have we done?

7 Replies

And so that time has rolled around again, a time when some of our avowedly “conservative” brethren start griping that no one will let them say “Merry Christmas.”

This has always struck me as one of the non-ier nonissues of the world, not least because it always comes up during Advent, not during Christmas, so why do they want to say “Merry Christmas” anyway, and doesn’t “Happy Holidays” cover it… but I’m not writing this to get all liturgical on you.

Anyway, Rick Perry, who seems to have decided that an evangelical offense is his best chance to get back into the game in Iowa, is now taking a big stand for Christmas. And he’s doing it with such apocryphal assertions as this, on CNN’s Situation Room:

What we’re seeing from the left, of which I would suggest to you, President Obama is a member of the left and substantial left-of-center beliefs, that you can’t even have a Christmas party. You can’t say a prayer at school.

Say what?, you’re thinking. But he’s counting on people who are not thinking to be impressed.

And I hate to put it that way, because I sound like one of those very godless secularists Perry’s trying to demonize. There are indeed people who see people of faith as simple fools.

But that means they see ME as a simple fool, so I’m not one of them.

By saying he’s trying to appeal to people who are not thinking, I’m saying that Perry himself is the one insulting the intelligence of people of faith. Particularly when those people can look back at Gov. Perry’s own official “holiday” greeting of last Dec. 22:

Gov. Perry: Keep Veterans, First Responders in Your Thoughts and Prayers this Holiday Season

Wednesday, December 22, 2010  •  Austin, Texas  •  Press Release

The holidays are a special time of year to pause and take stock of the many blessings we enjoy, not just as human beings, but as Americans and Texans. Of all those blessings, I’d offer that the most precious is our freedom.

There are thousands of Texans serving the cause of freedom all over the world, in dangerous places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Driven by a dedication to our country and communities, they’ll spend the holidays thousands of miles from parents, friends, spouses and children.

I encourage you to keep our fighting men and women in your thoughts and prayers, along with their families who anxiously await their return. At the same time, I hope you’ll remember the folks who keep our neighborhoods safe: our state’s first responders.

While we enjoy the comforts of home with loved ones, these brave men and women are on the job, providing care in the back of an ambulance, preparing to respond to a fire call or patrolling our international border.
We should never take them for granted and we should definitely keep them in our prayers as they sacrifice for our safety.

So, during this holiday season, remember to thank a first responder or salute a veteran for their service and pray for God’s protection on them and their families.

May God bless you and, through you, may He continue to bless the Great State of Texas.

Did you see any Jesus in that greeting? Neither did I. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s fine. It’s just that you wouldn’t know that to hear Perry now.

Mainly what Perry has done is amuse the godless secularists mightily with his hypocrisy, which is why this inconsistency is flying around the Internet, which is why I knew about it to share it with you.

Nothing like a quiet, holy, contemplative Advent, huh?

… and guess who CAN’T say that?

13 Replies

And so it begins. As the WashPost notes:

Mitt Romney is up with a new ad that takes a not-so-subtle swipe at Newt Gingrich. Called “Leader,” the 30-second ad set to go up on the air in New Hampshire and Iowa this week, features old home video footage of Romney, his wife and his kids, with a voiceover of the former governor of Massachusetts saying:

“If I’m President of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

With images of Romney as a dad and as a husband front and center, the obvious contrast is with Gingrich, who has been married three times and has admitted to infidelity. The ad is the most personal look at Romney and his family life so far as he tries to make more of a connection with voters, particularly social conservatives, who still have concerns about Gingrich….

I guess Romney’s really taking those latest poll numbers to heart.

Does America “feel sorry” for Obama?

17 Replies

Don’t know if you heard about the snafu whereby a reporter for Yahoo (and I didn’t even know Yahoo had reporters) was inadvertently allowed to listen in on a private GOP strategy session…

Anyway, the headline from it was, the Republicans on the call were warned not to attack President Obama too directly as they try to get him fired by the electorate:

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”

Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give “high approval” to Obama personally, Thompson said.

Voters “don’t think he’s an evil man who’s out to change the United States” for the worse–even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should “exercise some caution” when talking about the president personally…

How about that? There’s hope for the world when we see that top Republican strategists don’t see Obama as the incarnation of all evil — or are at least reluctant to say so. Now, if I can just persuade my Democratic friends that calling other people “vicious” is not conducive to a meeting of the minds, maybe we can get together and solve some problems in this country…

Speaking of Harpootlian, now I’m REALLY confused

1 Reply

Right after I got the weird Colbert thing that purportedly involves Dick Harpootlian, I got this other release that I think refers to an actual, serious case pertaining to the SC Republican Presidential Primary:

South Carolina Democratic Party Petitions State Supreme Court for Re-hearing

Columbia, SC – Today, Dick Harpootlian, Chair of the S.C. Democratic Party, petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court for a re-hearing of their ruling in Buford County v. S.C. Election Commission.  See petition here.

The issue is the court’s decision to remove advisory questions from the upcoming Presidential Preference Primary Ballots.

As advisory questions were not included on the statement of issues, they were never properly submitted to the court. Therefore, we believe the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on them, said Harpootlian.

The people of South Carolina deserve to have their voices heard on these issues. The Democratic Party is particularly interested in Ballot Question 4, which addresses the issue of corporate personhood.

The question, which has already been printed and included on sample ballots and some military absentee ballots, asks the people of South Carolina to choose between two options: “Corporations are people” and “Only people are people.” You can view the sample ballot here.

“It is important that we all know how the Palmetto State feels about this defining issue,” said Harpootlian.

The South Carolina Presidential Preference Primary will be held on January 21, 2012.

###

Trouble is, I’ve never heard of a “Buford County” in South Carolina. You?

Oh, wait — this IS the same thing as what Colbert is on about. At least the “corporate personhood” part.

I’m so confused…

Colbert attempts to intervene in SC primary

8 Replies

Y’all will probably be confused as much as I am, but I’ll just pass this on without trying to understand it first:

FOR EVENTUAL RELEASE

Stephen Colbert Works with Democrats, Makes them Briefly Patriotic
NEW YORK CITY, SOUTH CAROLINA – Award-eligible pundit and 2012 Kingmaker Stephen Colbert has reached out to the South Carolina Democratic Party to help restore the non-binding referenda to the 2012 South Carolina primary. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in November that all referenda be removed from the primary ballot.

“Trust me, this was a measure of last resort,” said Colbert, Colbert Super PAC’s Chairman and Gangwar Consigliere. “I’ve always thought Democrats had only one skill: simultaneously being atheists and holier-than-thou. But apparently they also have legal standing in this case.”

Colbert has asked Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party Richard Harpootlian to petition his state’s Supreme Court for a rehearing of their ruling in Buford County v. S.C. Election Commission. He has also asked him if it’s alright to call him “Harpootie.” Harpootlian has agreed to the first request.

At issue is the court’s decision to remove advisory questions from the upcoming Presidential Preference Primary Ballots. Of particular interest to Colbert Super PAC is Question 4. The question, which has already been approved by the South Carolina Commission and included on sample ballots and some military absentee ballots , asks the people of South Carolina to choose between two options: “Corporations are people” and “Only people are people.” (For the sample ballot click here or see below).

“After the citizens of South Carolina declare once and for all that corporations are people, we can move on to other urgent issues facing our great nation,” said Colbert, “In 2016 I hope to include a question on whether Democrats are people.”

Colbert Super PAC, also known as Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, is an independent expenditure-only committee dedicated to following the Letter of the Law, and letting the Spirit of the Law find its own way home. It was founded by Stephen Colbert, who currently holds the rank of World’s Most Famous Living South Carolinian, and who will host the Colbert Super PAC South Carolina Debate to be held in January. It’s going to be a classy affair. Shrimp cocktail, the works.

###

For Press Inquiries Contact:
Alberto Rèalnamè
Communications Director, Colbert Super PAC
alberto.realname@colbertsuperpac.com

Yeah, I get that it’s a joke. But I got confused that Harpootlian was involved. But then, Colbert always works with the Democrats when he comes to SC, possibly because he can’t get SC Republicans to laugh at him. Or with him. I don’t know.

In any case, here is a link to Colbert’s proposed ballot.

SC politics looks extra weird from the outside

8 Replies

No matter how many times it happens, I always have this odd feeling of disconnection, of unreality, when I see how SC politics looks from the outside.

For instance, this game, which invites you to drag important endorsers down to the presidential candidates you think they’ll endorse… and then look back in the coming weeks and see how you did.

Aside from the SC angle, it’s an odd game. Think about it. Who, beyond political professionals (and few, if any, of them), has enough knowledge of who the key endorsers are in key states even are, much less know enough about them to divine, or even come close to divining, whom they will support?

And then there’s the really weird part. The part where there are people who are actual candidates for President of the United States who might be sitting up nights waiting to see whether Nikki Haley will confer her endorsement upon them.

Which doubles back and reinforces my first point. As a guy who has observed SC politics up close and personal for longer than some of the younger professional observers have been alive, I can’t swear that I know what sort of influence Nikki’s endorsement would have. That’s a tough thing to read. But I’m sure that among the greater primary electorate it’s greater than what it would be among political insiders. So it makes sense for her to be on this chart.

But it still feels weird. Nikki Haley? The one who until so recently was a relatively isolated back-bencher in the SC House, and hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as governor? An influencer as to who will be the most powerful person in the world?

Really?

As plain as he can be: Newt’s going for pure, unadulterated generic

42 Replies

Now that Newt Gingrich is the apparent front-runner, I thought y’all might want to marvel with me at his new ad.

I think it just might be the most generic political ad (generic for a Republican, anyway) I have ever seen.

A little “Morning in America.” A little “America the Beautiful.” Breathtakingly lacking in controversy.

Maybe its natural that the most idiosyncratic “front-runner” I can remember in many a day would seek to be as ordinary as possible. As generic as he can be, totally friction-free.

Or maybe Newt’s overdoing it a little…

Ben Smith at Politico calls it “literal.” I call it “Extreme Vanilla.”